A bill has been introduced in the House to allow Congress to override the US Supreme Court, titled the "Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004." Here is the operative section:
The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court—Not only is this a very bad idea, even in reaction to runaway courts, but it doesn't even adress the issue of lower court actions not reviewed by SCOTUS. Luckily, it will die in committee.
(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
I don't know that it is such a bad idea (and that is coming from an unabashed libertarian.) There is supposed to be a three-way balance between the three branches -- the other two should be able to gang up on any one. Right now, it looks like the Judicial Branch is creeping up on running away with all the power. As long as we are talking supermajority and executive approval, I don't have any problem with Congress and the President saying, "Bad Justices" and slapping thier hands.
Posted by: Phelps at March 12, 2004 08:30 AMThree things wrong with that in my mind.
The minor point is that this does not seem to involve the president in the override.
The second point is that Congress already has the power to ratify all judges, and can effectively control the judiary through that means, should it wish to. Clearly it doesn't wish to.
The major point is that such an arrangement leaves ALL constitutional authority in the hands of Congress. They can pass a law, override a veto and declare it constitutional, no matter what. This allows Congress the opportunity to abscond with MUCH more power than even the worst of the courts do today. Under this rule, they could abolish elections and no one is empowered to block them.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at March 12, 2004 08:51 AM